Original pedant here. Honored to get my own section. To dispel with your argument, I don't strictly demand that social phenomena be something that can be mercilessly measured into statistics in order to prove them. Anyone's free to make opinions that can't be proven. "Everybody seems angrier while driving since COVID" .... "The 1950's were the worst decade for film" .... "Cell phones are probably linked to cancer" ... Pretty sure one can agree that, the ability to prove or disprove aside, there is a qualitative spectrum to claims generated by observing the zeitgeist/gestalt and large social phenomena. You don't have to bring stats, but if something can't be proven or disproven, you are free to attempt to convince. You don't even deign to bring an argument beyond "it's self-evident."
But drilling down: your claim is not just that there is a vibe, or that there's fear in certain artistic circles, or that maybe this is a growing trend. You're making a categorical statement about the entire artistic landscape that the *single* most important factor to the current state of art's lack of edge or whatever (which is, again, it's own categorical statement) is artists' fear of personal cancellation. Now, again, I'm not saying you're not allowed to make an argument. But there are entire fields of social science that attempt to sort the infinite noise of life and isolate and explain causative effects. You could fill academic journals on this topic disentangling the "chilling effect" from other factors I mentioned, the increasing precarity of artist economics, the finance capitalization of all major industries, the drive for ever safer and safer stock returns, corporate consolidation, even just like ... upcoming generations being far less exposed to daring or "edgy" or DIY art of any kind (think of music ... you could make a case that Gen Z and Alpha will make increasingly harmless music because their tastes are dictated by streaming platforms and few things outside of that ecosystem ever penetrates to them en mass). I'm not saying *you* have to write an essay or do grant-funded research on this topic. But then again, *you're* the one making a claim about a vastly complex idea and have simplified it to one causative factor. Again, if you can't prove, you are free to attempt to convince, and this reader (who travels in artistic circles, as well) is not convinced. If you want to elevate your take to the level of ecstatic truth without any pushback, I dunno, consider starting a cult.
I must be the lunatic you describe because all those potential factors you mention fall under the umbrella I’m talking about. And I’m sorry to do this to you, but i’m gonna need your public facing identity to give a shit about this college talk. Do you have anything at risk or is this just a fun topic for you?
You wouldn't consider my platform nearly tall enough to be "an artist at risk", so I guess that precludes me from the topic. You're saying all of those complex financial mechanisms are downstream of fear of artistic provocation (which is again, not merely "we alienated an audience in the way that, idk, having superheroes talk too much is alienating to a Chinese audience" classic four-quadrant thinking, but "we are afraid of stepping on a landmine")? Wild ... I think the cancel culture discourse is fascinating because there's a quasi-religious element to it, and individual incidents get hyped as if they were the spotting of Mary's face on a piece of toast. Now here's another big claim some people make: holding a job as a college teacher is more dangerous than ever because of students' sensitivities. Plenty of little anecdotes and vibes about that shit. Seems similarly unable to disprove, but even FIRE, who is obsessed with this topic, had a report that found 111 "incidents" in 2021 of professors who were subject to "investigations, suspensions, or terminations". Even if we took all of those as grave offenses (anyone who deals with HR in *any* place knows investigations are mostly paperwork that go nowhere), 111 incidents across .... 6,000 colleges in the US .... 1.5 million professors .... that is considered ... what? A trend? A social phenomena? A chilling effect? And yet the amount of ink spilled on this topic would make you think the kids are holding witch trials. I know this hasn't shit to do with your claim, but, sorry, they're in the same ballpark, and there is a particular media obsession with this topic that (here's my claim) has definitely had a distorting effect. How is one even supposed to disentangle whether the artists' fears are rational and that they're not head-deep in a poisoned well?
It's mind-boggling that you say "111 incidents" as if that's a low number. And it's REALLY wild that you think that 111 has no chilling effect. That's the entire point of my thesis here. 6 people being beheaded in the public square would chill tens of thousands. Is this really that difficult to imagine or are you being willfully obtuse?
Again, across 6,000 colleges and 1.5 million professors, what would be a normal number?? Again, these are any and all types. Some of these were "investigations" that were dismissed instantly. You seem to take my granting that these are all grave offenses, but some of these were legitimate, not in the "you crossed an ideological line" way but in typical workplace grievance issue ways. One standard sized college probably receives 5x that amount of student complaints about professors and they never rise to this level. Do you have any argument to the purported power of the chilling effect that does not rely on it being self-evident in your own head?
Once again looking for data that can't exist by virtue of how it would be collected. You clearly don't wanna believe this phenomenon exists because it suits you. I don't wanna believe it because it directly impacts my life. But I have to. Because I see it all the time. I'm sorry, I hate when people dismiss others because of the bullshit 'lived experience' gap. You can have thoughts on this, but it's getting impossible to take your argument as a serious one. And, again, the college thing demonstrates my point. You seem to think a phenomenon needs overwhelming numbers to have an impact. But IT IS ACTUALLY SELF-EVIDENT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
i've said i don't need numbers, but you've got nothing else to persuade on a supposedly *society shifting* phenomenon. ive got 100 professors and 100 artists here who don't say there's a chilling effect, you've got the same number. why is your claim and sample size more based in reality than mine?
I totally agreed with your take on the chilling effect. I’m a visual artist, and I’ve tired with the idea of creating a YouTube channel or a podcast for years, but I can’t get past the potential downsides to being known by a bunch of strangers on the internet. I barely even post my work on social media anymore. I have a 9 to 5, and I paint in my basement in the evening and text pictures to friends sometimes.
Being known by strangers is not the same as fear of making provocative art. There's understandably more stress just in the ability to be perceived exponentially more than in the past. But that's different than Pat's claim that "art is bad because artists are scared."
Rarely gets touched? Buddy there's like a NYTimes or Atlantic article nearly every week about "the excesses of cancel culture" because like, idk, one group of college kids got mad that their cafeteria appropriated the bahn mi sandwich.
Original pedant here. Honored to get my own section. To dispel with your argument, I don't strictly demand that social phenomena be something that can be mercilessly measured into statistics in order to prove them. Anyone's free to make opinions that can't be proven. "Everybody seems angrier while driving since COVID" .... "The 1950's were the worst decade for film" .... "Cell phones are probably linked to cancer" ... Pretty sure one can agree that, the ability to prove or disprove aside, there is a qualitative spectrum to claims generated by observing the zeitgeist/gestalt and large social phenomena. You don't have to bring stats, but if something can't be proven or disproven, you are free to attempt to convince. You don't even deign to bring an argument beyond "it's self-evident."
But drilling down: your claim is not just that there is a vibe, or that there's fear in certain artistic circles, or that maybe this is a growing trend. You're making a categorical statement about the entire artistic landscape that the *single* most important factor to the current state of art's lack of edge or whatever (which is, again, it's own categorical statement) is artists' fear of personal cancellation. Now, again, I'm not saying you're not allowed to make an argument. But there are entire fields of social science that attempt to sort the infinite noise of life and isolate and explain causative effects. You could fill academic journals on this topic disentangling the "chilling effect" from other factors I mentioned, the increasing precarity of artist economics, the finance capitalization of all major industries, the drive for ever safer and safer stock returns, corporate consolidation, even just like ... upcoming generations being far less exposed to daring or "edgy" or DIY art of any kind (think of music ... you could make a case that Gen Z and Alpha will make increasingly harmless music because their tastes are dictated by streaming platforms and few things outside of that ecosystem ever penetrates to them en mass). I'm not saying *you* have to write an essay or do grant-funded research on this topic. But then again, *you're* the one making a claim about a vastly complex idea and have simplified it to one causative factor. Again, if you can't prove, you are free to attempt to convince, and this reader (who travels in artistic circles, as well) is not convinced. If you want to elevate your take to the level of ecstatic truth without any pushback, I dunno, consider starting a cult.
I must be the lunatic you describe because all those potential factors you mention fall under the umbrella I’m talking about. And I’m sorry to do this to you, but i’m gonna need your public facing identity to give a shit about this college talk. Do you have anything at risk or is this just a fun topic for you?
You wouldn't consider my platform nearly tall enough to be "an artist at risk", so I guess that precludes me from the topic. You're saying all of those complex financial mechanisms are downstream of fear of artistic provocation (which is again, not merely "we alienated an audience in the way that, idk, having superheroes talk too much is alienating to a Chinese audience" classic four-quadrant thinking, but "we are afraid of stepping on a landmine")? Wild ... I think the cancel culture discourse is fascinating because there's a quasi-religious element to it, and individual incidents get hyped as if they were the spotting of Mary's face on a piece of toast. Now here's another big claim some people make: holding a job as a college teacher is more dangerous than ever because of students' sensitivities. Plenty of little anecdotes and vibes about that shit. Seems similarly unable to disprove, but even FIRE, who is obsessed with this topic, had a report that found 111 "incidents" in 2021 of professors who were subject to "investigations, suspensions, or terminations". Even if we took all of those as grave offenses (anyone who deals with HR in *any* place knows investigations are mostly paperwork that go nowhere), 111 incidents across .... 6,000 colleges in the US .... 1.5 million professors .... that is considered ... what? A trend? A social phenomena? A chilling effect? And yet the amount of ink spilled on this topic would make you think the kids are holding witch trials. I know this hasn't shit to do with your claim, but, sorry, they're in the same ballpark, and there is a particular media obsession with this topic that (here's my claim) has definitely had a distorting effect. How is one even supposed to disentangle whether the artists' fears are rational and that they're not head-deep in a poisoned well?
It's mind-boggling that you say "111 incidents" as if that's a low number. And it's REALLY wild that you think that 111 has no chilling effect. That's the entire point of my thesis here. 6 people being beheaded in the public square would chill tens of thousands. Is this really that difficult to imagine or are you being willfully obtuse?
Again, across 6,000 colleges and 1.5 million professors, what would be a normal number?? Again, these are any and all types. Some of these were "investigations" that were dismissed instantly. You seem to take my granting that these are all grave offenses, but some of these were legitimate, not in the "you crossed an ideological line" way but in typical workplace grievance issue ways. One standard sized college probably receives 5x that amount of student complaints about professors and they never rise to this level. Do you have any argument to the purported power of the chilling effect that does not rely on it being self-evident in your own head?
Once again looking for data that can't exist by virtue of how it would be collected. You clearly don't wanna believe this phenomenon exists because it suits you. I don't wanna believe it because it directly impacts my life. But I have to. Because I see it all the time. I'm sorry, I hate when people dismiss others because of the bullshit 'lived experience' gap. You can have thoughts on this, but it's getting impossible to take your argument as a serious one. And, again, the college thing demonstrates my point. You seem to think a phenomenon needs overwhelming numbers to have an impact. But IT IS ACTUALLY SELF-EVIDENT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
i've said i don't need numbers, but you've got nothing else to persuade on a supposedly *society shifting* phenomenon. ive got 100 professors and 100 artists here who don't say there's a chilling effect, you've got the same number. why is your claim and sample size more based in reality than mine?
tl:dr - just make your case, bud
I totally agreed with your take on the chilling effect. I’m a visual artist, and I’ve tired with the idea of creating a YouTube channel or a podcast for years, but I can’t get past the potential downsides to being known by a bunch of strangers on the internet. I barely even post my work on social media anymore. I have a 9 to 5, and I paint in my basement in the evening and text pictures to friends sometimes.
Being known by strangers is not the same as fear of making provocative art. There's understandably more stress just in the ability to be perceived exponentially more than in the past. But that's different than Pat's claim that "art is bad because artists are scared."
Rarely gets touched? Buddy there's like a NYTimes or Atlantic article nearly every week about "the excesses of cancel culture" because like, idk, one group of college kids got mad that their cafeteria appropriated the bahn mi sandwich.